Landmark Cases Tort Law Summary
| Case (Year) | Facts & Issues | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashby v White MANU/ENRP/0629/1811 |
Plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from voting by the defendant returning officer; though the plaintiff suffered no quantifiable loss. | Court found a violation of the plaintiff's right and awarded damages. | Established that every violation of a legal right merits a remedy (“ubi jus ibi remedium”). |
| Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 |
Defendant built a reservoir over old mine shafts; water escaped and flooded the plaintiff's mine. | House of Lords imposed strict liability for the escape of potentially dangerous things brought onto land (“non-natural use” doctrine). | Introduced strict liability in English law; influential on environmental and industrial liability. |
| Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503 |
A ship painter was injured due to defective staging supplied by the defendant; raised questions of a general duty of care beyond contractual privity. | Brett MR suggested a broad duty of care whenever one’s acts could foreseeably harm another. | A precursor to modern negligence and the “neighbor principle” later in Donoghue v Stevenson. |
| Wilkinson v Downton (1897) 2 QB 57 |
Defendant falsely told the plaintiff her husband was severely injured, causing severe mental shock. | Court found liability where extreme intentional conduct caused recognizable harm, even absent physical contact. | Early recognition of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in English law. |
| MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382 (1916) |
Plaintiff injured by a defective wheel; sued manufacturer though no direct contract existed. | Cardozo J: manufacturers owe duty of care to ultimate consumers if the product is likely to cause harm when negligently made. | Landmark US case weakening privity; broadened product liability in negligence. |
| Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) |
Plaintiff found a snail in a ginger beer bottle; sued manufacturer despite no direct contract. | House of Lords established the “neighbor principle,” confirming a duty of care to foreseeably affected persons. | Cornerstone of modern negligence; general duty of care standard in common law. |
| Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) [1936] A.C. 85 |
Plaintiff developed dermatitis from woolen underwear with excess chemicals; no direct contract with manufacturer. | Privy Council held manufacturer liable, affirming Donoghue v Stevenson duty to end consumers. | Strengthened manufacturer liability in negligence for product defects. |
| Bolton v Stone (1951) AC 850 |
Cricket ball cleared a high fence and struck plaintiff; extremely rare; club had taken precautions. | No negligence; likelihood of harm minimal and precautions reasonable. | Very small risk + reasonable precautions may mean no breach of duty. |
| Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] A.C. 367 |
One-eyed mechanic not provided goggles; splinter caused total blindness in other eye. | Defendant liable; seriousness of potential harm to vulnerable employee demanded stricter precautions. | Standard of care considers magnitude of harm and known vulnerability. |
| Roe v Minister of Health (1954) 2 QB 66 |
Plaintiff paralyzed by spinal anesthesia contaminated by phenol; risk not known at the time. | No liability; negligence judged by knowledge available at the time (“state of the art”). | Unforeseeable risks (based on then-current knowledge) do not incur liability. |
| Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582 |
ECT given without relaxants; plaintiff alleged medical negligence. | “Bolam test”: no negligence if acting in accordance with an accepted body of medical opinion. | Classic medical negligence standard (later refined, e.g., Bolitho). |
| Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (“Wagon Mound” No.1) MANU/UKPC/0001/1961 |
Oil spill in harbor caught fire damaging plaintiff’s wharf; issue of remoteness. | Liability limited to damage of a reasonably foreseeable type; replaced Re Polemis “direct consequence” test. | Modern foreseeability rule for remoteness in negligence. |
| Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller [1964] A.C. 465 |
Bank gave negligent reference; plaintiff relied and suffered pure economic loss. | Duty for negligent misstatements in a “special relationship,” but disclaimer negated liability here. | Foundation for negligent misrepresentation causing economic loss (with special relationship). |
| Home Office v Dorset Yacht (1970) 2 All ER 294 |
Borstal officers negligently allowed trainees to escape; trainees damaged a yacht. | Home Office liable; duty to prevent foreseeable damage from those under their control. | Expanded liability for omissions/third-party acts with a custodial “special relationship.” |
| Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973] QB 27 (CA) |
Power cable damaged; factory shutdown; claim for lost production/profits. | Physical damage + consequential economic loss recoverable; pure economic loss from shutdown not. | Distinguishes consequential vs pure economic loss in negligence. |
| Nettleship v Weston (1971) 2 QB 691 |
Learner driver injured her instructor; negligence claim. | Learners held to standard of reasonably competent driver; contributory negligence reduced damages. | Objective standard of care: inexperience does not lower the standard. |
| Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California 551 P.2d 334 (1976) |
Patient told therapist he intended to kill a woman; she wasn’t warned; later murdered. | Duty to warn identifiable victims of serious threats. | Exception to confidentiality: duty to protect third parties from credible threats. |
| Summers v Tice — |
Two hunters negligently fired toward plaintiff; uncertain whose shot caused injury. | Both defendants jointly liable; burden shifts to them to absolve themselves. | Established “alternative liability” when multiple negligent actors and uncertain causation. |
| Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling 150 P.2d 436 at 440 (1944) |
Soda bottle exploded in plaintiff’s hand; alleged negligence in bottling. | Majority found negligence; Traynor concurrence advocated strict liability for defective products. | Precursor to modern strict product liability (later embraced in Greenman v Yuba). |
| Greenman v Yuba Power Products 59 Cal 2d 57 |
Plaintiff injured by defective power tool. | Strict liability imposed on manufacturer for defective design without proving negligence. | Milestone in US strict product liability (Traynor J). |
| Hustler Magazine v Falwell 485 U.S. 46 |
Parody implied Falwell had drunken incestuous liaison; he sued for IIED. | Public figures must show false statements of fact with “actual malice”; parody protected speech. | Strong First Amendment protection for satire/parody limiting IIED claims by public figures. |
| Rogers v Whitaker MANU/AUSH/0047/1992 |
Nearly blind patient not warned of small risk of sympathetic ophthalmia; became blind in both eyes. | Duty to warn of material risks a reasonable person in patient’s position would want to know. | Key Australian informed consent case emphasizing patient autonomy. |
| Chester v Afshar 2004 UKHL 41 |
Surgeon failed to warn of small (1–2%) risk of severe spinal cord damage; patient said she’d have sought advice/different timing. | Liability for failure to warn; lack of disclosure prevented truly informed consent. | Expanded patient rights; influenced causation analysis in medical negligence. |
| Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 |
Diabetic mother not warned of shoulder dystocia risk; child suffered birth injury. | Doctors must ensure patients are aware of material risks and alternatives; not governed by Bolam. | Major shift to patient-centered disclosure and autonomy in UK law. |
| Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) 1 Q.B. 428 |
Patient died of arsenic poisoning after hospital turned him away; evidence showed he would have died anyway. | No liability; negligence did not cause death under “but for” test. | Classic factual causation illustration: no liability if harm would occur regardless. |
| Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 |
Children exploring manhole lamp caused explosion; exact manner unexpected but burns foreseeable. | Liability found; enough that type of harm was foreseeable even if chain of events wasn’t. | Exact sequence need not be foreseeable; only general type of harm. |
| Smith v Leech Brain (1965) AC 778 |
Workman with pre-existing cancerous condition splashed by molten metal triggering fatal cancer. | Defendant liable under “egg-shell skull” rule: take victim as found. | Liable for full extent if type of harm foreseeable, even if aggravated by vulnerability. |
| Haley v London Electricity Board — |
Blind man fell into a hole in pavement; only visual warning provided. | Defendant liable; duty to take precautions for disabled pedestrians as foreseeable road users. | Extends “reasonable person” foreseeability to include disabled pedestrians. |
| Latimer v AEC [1953] UKHL 3 |
Factory floor flooded and slippery; sawdust spread but not everywhere; plaintiff slipped. | No negligence; closing factory would be disproportionate to risk. | Balances cost/practicality of precautions against likelihood and severity of harm. |
| Smith v Littlewoods (1987) 1 All ER 710 |
Vandals broke into empty cinema and started fire spreading to neighbors. | No liability; generally no duty to prevent third-party acts absent special relationship/knowledge of specific risk. | Reinforces no general liability for omissions to control third parties without control/foreseeability. |
| Jolley v Sutton LBC MANU/UKHL/0075/2000 |
Children tried to repair abandoned boat on council land; boat fell injuring one child. | Council liable; foreseeable children would meddle and suffer physical harm. | Wide foreseeability where children are involved (occupiers/authority liability context). |
| Liebeck v McDonald’s 1995 WL 360309 |
Elderly woman suffered severe burns from coffee at very high temperature; sued for negligence/product defects. | Jury found McDonald’s liable; damages awarded (later reduced); temperature unreasonably high and warnings insufficient. | High-profile duty-to-warn / safe product standards case; major public debate on “hot coffee” suits. |
| M.C. Mehta v Union of India MANU/SC/0396/1987 |
Oleum gas leak from a chemical plant in Delhi; a public interest litigation was filed for compensation and stricter liability standards. | Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of “absolute liability” for hazardous industries, disallowing common defenses. | Expanded Rylands v Fletcher into “absolute liability” for ultrahazardous activities in Indian jurisprudence, strengthening environmental and industrial safety norms. |
Toll Free No : 1-800-103-3550
+91-120-4014521